UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION II AIR PROGRAMS BRANCH

Technical Support Document  

EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

For 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Plans; Determination of
Attainment of the 1997 Fine Particle Standard

July  2010

                                         

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Technical Support Document

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………
………………….......2.

CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS FOR FINE PARTICLE (PM 2.5) ATTAINMENT...3

PM 2.5 Attainment Requirements
………………………………………………..………3

Determining Attainment and EPA’s Clean Data
Policy……………………….…..........4

MONITORING NETWORK
………………………………………………………………
5

PS 59 MONITORING
SITE…………………………………………………………
……..8

PS 19 MONITORING
SITE…………………………………………………………
……..8

EPA’S ANALYSIS
……………………………….……………………………
…………..8

	A.  Analysis of Air Quality
Data…………………………………………………………
…8 

B.  Addressing Missing
Data…………………………………………………………
……..9

C.  Additional
Analysis………………………………………………………
…………….20

D. 
Trends…………………………………………………………
………………………..20

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………
……………………….22

APPENDIX A Annual Means for NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 FRM monitors
……………………………..23 

APPENDIX B Network Review
Letters………………………………………………………
…...26

I.	INTRODUCTION  TC \l1 "I.	INTRODUCTION 

	In this technical support document, EPA provides information supporting
our proposed determination that the New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island,
NY-NJ-CT fine particle (PM2.5) nonattainment area has attained the 1997
annual fine particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS).                 

	In this technical support document, EPA:

summarizes the statutory and policy requirements for PM2.5 nonattainment
area SIPs and EPA’s policy concerning clean data;

provides a description of the air quality monitoring network for the
NY-NJ-CT fine particle nonattainment area

describes the PS 59 monitoring site, and provides an explanation for
site shutdown;

describes the PS 19 monitoring site, and provides an explanation for
incomplete data;

describes our detailed analysis of our proposed clean data
determination, including our analysis of the air quality data, and the
methodology used for substituting for missing data; 

describes air quality trends in the the NY-NJ-CT fine particle
nonattainment area

summarizes our conclusions on the clean data determination with respect
to EPA requirements.       

II.	CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS FOR FINE PARTICLE (PM 2.5) ATTAINMENT  
TC \l1 "II.	DESCRIPTION OF NOx RACT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW JERSEY'S NOx
RACT REGULATION 

A.	PM 2.5 Attainment Requirements 

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 In 1997, EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for
PM2.5 , setting it at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) based on a
3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour
standard of 65 ug/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of
24-hour concentrations.  EPA established the standards based on
significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that
serious health effects are associated with exposures to particulate
matter.  

	On January 5, 2005, (70 FR 944) EPA finalized its air quality
designations and classifications across the country with respect to the
1997 PM2.5 standard.  These designations became effective on April 5,
2005.  The NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area was designated
nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (see 40 CFR part 81.333). 


These designations triggered the Clean Air Act’s requirements under
section 172(c), which requires the submission of an attainment plan for
each designated nonattainment area.  EPA’s PM2.5 implementation rule,
published on April 25, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 20586) specifies that states
must submit attainment plans for their nonattainment areas to the EPA by
no later than three years from the effective date of designation, that
is, by April 5, 2008.  EPA’s PM2.5 implementation rule outlines the
SIP requirements for the attainment plan, which includes among other
things, the submission of an attainment demonstration showing the
air-quality improvements expected to result from national and local
control measures, an analysis of reasonably available control measures
(RACM), including all reasonably available control technology (RACT),
reasonable further progress plan, and contingency measures. 

The States of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, are subject to
these requirements since several counties in the State are located in a
PM2.5 nonattainment area.  The NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area (40 CFR
81.331) is comprised of the following portions of New York, New Jersey,
and Connecticut:  the New York portion contains the counties of the
Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Orange, Queens, Richmond, Rockland,
Suffolk, and Westchester.  The New Jersey portion of the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5
nonattainment area contains the counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson,
Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, and Union.  The
Connecticut portion of the nonattainment area includes the counties of
Fairfield and New Haven.

New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut submitted their attainment plans
for this area on October 27, 2009, April 1, 2009, and November 18, 2008
respectively.  EPA has not yet taken action on these submittals.

B.	Determining Attainment and EPA’s Clean Data Policy  

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.7:  The annual primary and secondary
PM2.5 standards are met when the annual arithmetic mean concentration,
as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, is less
than or equal to 15.0 ug/m3.

	Data handling conventions and computations necessary for determining
whether areas have met the PM2.5 NAAQS, including requirements for data
completeness, are listed in Appendix N of 40 CFR Part 50.  A year meets
data completeness requirements when at least 75 percent of the scheduled
sampling days for each quarter have valid data.  The use of less than
complete data is subject to the approval of EPA, which may consider
factors such as monitoring site closures/moves, monitoring diligence,
and nearby concentrations in determining whether to use such data.  

	EPA issued a “Clean Data” policy in December 2004 describing
possible reduced regulatory requirements for areas that attain the
standards, but have not yet been designated as attainment.  In EPA’s
PM2.5 implementation rule, published on April 25, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg.
20586), EPA finalized in section 51.1004(c) of the text the statutory
interpretation that was embodied in the policy.  

	As described in EPA’s clean data policy, upon a determination by EPA
that an area designated nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS has attained
the standard, the requirements for such area to submit attainment
demonstrations, reasonably available control measures, reasonable
further progress plans, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs
related to attainment of the PM2.5  NAAQS shall be suspended until such
time as:  the area is redesignated to attainment, at which time the
requirements no longer apply; or EPA determines that the area has
violated the PM2.5 NAAQS, at which time the area is again required to
submit such plans.

	Attainment determinations under EPA’s clean data policy do not shield
an area from other required actions such as New Source Review (NSR),
conformity and emission inventory requirements, and provisions to
address pollution transport, which would require emission reductions at
sources or other types of emission activities contributing significantly
to nonattainment in other areas or states, or interfering with
maintenance in those areas.

Determinations as to whether individual areas have attained the PM2.5
standard and thus qualify for application of the clean data policy are
being made in the context of rulemakings for individual areas.  This
Technical Support Document (TSD) provides EPA’s analysis used to
determine whether the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area has achieved
clean data.    

 

MONITORING NETWORK 

With the promulgation of the annual and daily PM2.5 national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) in 1997, and the establishment of the Federal
Reference Method (FRM) for monitoring PM2.5, air monitoring for this
pollutant was initiated in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area
beginning in 1998/1999. 

Only FRM data is used for determining compliance with the health based
standards. The states also complement their FRM network with real-time
direct reading hourly PM2.5 measurements.  Real-time monitors are used
primarily in support of the Air Quality Index (AQI),   which provides
immediate information to the public about air quality and its
relationship to public health.  

The PM2.5 FRM is a filter based method whereby a sample is collected for
a specified period of time (e.g., 24 hours) on filters that are weighed
before and after collection to determine mass by difference.  The mass
value is divided by the total volume of air drawn through the filter,
yielding the average mass concentration for the specified time period.
Most of the FRM samplers in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area
operate on a 1-in-3-day schedule, although a few monitors operate on a
daily basis. Also, as per network design requirements, several FRM sites
have collocated duplicate samplers.

The NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area currently has thirty-nine air
monitoring locations.  This far exceeds the minimum regulatory
requirements:  40 CFR part 58, Appendix D requires three monitoring
locations for the NY Metropolitan Statistical Area based on a population
above 1,000,000 and the most recent 3 year design value >=85% of the
PM2.5 NAAQS.  

	Table 1 shows the county design values (i.e., the 3-year average of
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations) for the years 2001-2009.  The county
design value is the highest annual mean measured for an FRM monitor that
had complete data in a county.  A map showing the locations of all FRM
monitoring locations in the nonattainment area is shown in Figure 1. 
The annual design values for all FRM monitors in the three States
located within the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area since 1999 can be
found in Appendix A.   

Table 1.--Design Values by County for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for
the NY-NJ-CT monitors in Micrograms per Cubic Meter (ug/m3).  The
standard for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS is 15.0 µg/m3.

01-03	02-04	03-05	04-06	05-07	06-08	07-09

County		DV	DV	DV	DV	DV	DV	DV

________________________________________________________________________
____

Bronx		15.7	15.2	15.7	15.1	15.5	14.3	13.9

Kings		14.7	14.2	14.6	14.0	14.0	12.9	12.2

Nassau		12.2	11.7	12.1	11.5	11.4	10.9	10.3

New York	17.5	16.7	17.0	15.7	15.9	14.9	14.0

Orange		11.5	11.1	11.4	10.8	10.8	10.0	9.3

Queens		INC	12.8	12.7	12.1	11.8	11.3	10.6

Richmond		12.0	11.5	11.8	13.4	13.2	12.4	11.6

Rockland		NM	NM	NM	NM	NM	NM	NM

Suffolk		12.1	11.3	11.5	INC	INC	10.5	9.7

Westchester	12.3	11.7	11.9	11.6	11.7	11.2	10.6

Bergen		INC	12.8	13.3	12.8	13.2	12.2	11.3

Essex		INC	13.5	INC	13.2	13.3	INC	INC

Hudson		14.7	14.3	14.7	14.1	14.0	14.1	13.1

Mercer		13.8	13.0	13.0	12.7	12.5	11.9	10.8

Middlesex		12.4	11.8	12.5	11.8	12.1	11.3	10.4

Monmouth		NM	NM	NM	NM	NM	NM	NM

Morris		INC	11.6	11.9	11.2	11.3	10.3	9.6

Passaic		INC	12.9	13.1	12.6	12.9	12.3	11.3

Somerset		NM	NM	NM	NM	NM	NM	NM

Union		15.5	15.3	15.5	14.8	14.4	13.6	12.6

Fairfield		13.1	12.7	13.3	13.2	13.2	12.4	11.3

New Haven	13.9	13.4	13.5	13.0	12.8	12.2	11.4

NM- No monitor located in county

INC- Incomplete data for time period.  All counties listed as INC for
time period did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement, and
had not previously shown violations of the NAAQS from years 2001-2003 to
present.   

Figure 1: The PM2.5 FRM monitor locations in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5
nonattainment area

The States of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut have been very
diligent in the number and placement of PM2.5 monitors in the
nonattainment area.  EPA meets annually with each state to discuss any
problems or issues concerning the State’s air monitoring data and/or
network.  In addition, EPA and the States communicate many times during
the year so that issues can be addressed as they show up.  EPA
regulations require states to submit annual network plans to their
respective Regions.  These plans outline the current networks and any
proposed changes in the upcoming 18 months.  Regions 1 and 2 have always
been able to approve these plans due to the high quality of the New
York, New Jersey, and Connecticut monitoring networks.  Copies of the
approved annual network review letters can be found in the Appendix B.

PS 59 MONITORING SITE 

The design value monitor for the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area was
located on the roof of  Public School 59 (AQS ID: 360610056) in New York
County.  The PS 59 monitor was the highest reading monitor at the time
EPA made designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on January 5, 2005.  

The unit was largely operational since monitoring was initiated in1999,
with the exception of monitor shut down for most of the third quarter of
2003 due to roof repairs. Ambient monitoring was resumed at this site in
October 2003.  

The site operated until mid 2008, when monitoring was discontinued
permanently at the site due to the building demolition of PS 59.  This
was a planned shutdown and although New York could have shut the monitor
down at the beginning of the year, the state chose to continue operation
as long as possible to collect data.  Unfortunately, the monitor at
this location could not be replaced, because the roof of the new
building was too far above sidewalk level to serve as a valid monitoring
site under 40 CFR part 86, Appendix E.  NY and EPA could not locate a
suitable replacement monitoring site in the immediate vicinity of PS 59
that would also meet siting criteria.

	The monitor at PS 59 was one of only two sites in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5
nonattainment area without a valid attaining design value due to
incomplete data.   See section VI. for additional information.

PS 19 MONITORING SITE 

The monitor located on the roof of  Public School 19 (AQS ID: 360610128)
had the second highest PM2.5 ambient concentration in New York County
based on data collected from 2002-2004.  

The unit was largely operational since monitoring was initiated in
October 2001, except for 2008 (i.e. quarters two thru four) and the
first quarter of 2009 due to roof repair issues.  Ambient monitoring was
resumed at this site in March 2009.  

	The monitor at PS 19 did not have a valid attaining design value due to
incomplete data.  See section VI. for additional information.

 

EPA’S ANALYSIS OF STATE SUBMITTAL

Analysis of Air Quality Data 

	EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for PM2.5, consistent
with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50 and recorded in the
EPA Air Quality System database for the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment
area from 2001 through the present time.  Currently all monitors are
well below the annual standard of 15.0 ug/m3.  The highest design value
for the most recent three years, 2007-2009, for the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5
nonattainment area is 14.0 ug/m3, which is representative of monitoring
data collected in New York County at Public School 59.   All 3-year
averages of the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations have been below the
NAAQS since 2005-2007.  

	Five sites in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area had previously
shown violations of the PM2.5   annual NAAQS when EPA finalized its air
quality designations on January 5, 2005.  Two of those sites, PS 59 and
PS 19, have not posted valid attaining design values due to incomplete
data.   The 

other three sites have all posted valid attaining values.  In order to
determine whether the NAAQS has been attained for PS 59 and PS 19, EPA
has developed a procedure to address the missing data, and determine
valid design values for those sites for the annual standard for
2007-2009.  EPA’s procedure is described in the following section.

Addressing Missing Data

An objective statistical method was developed to determine if previously
violating monitors in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area that lack
complete data would have met the NAAQS in subsequent time periods.  Two
previously violating monitors in the nonattainment area lacked complete
data due to building demolition and roof repair.

The general concept behind the statistical method to determine whether
an incomplete monitor (target) would have met the NAAQS is to establish
a linear regression relationship between the target monitor and another
monitor in the nonattainment area (candidate).  The linear regression
would then be used to fill in the missing data for the target monitor. 
The results are checked with an additional statistical technique, known
as bootstrapping, to verify if the conclusion of attainment is correct. 
The NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area has 39 monitoring locations which
provide an ample number of monitors to compare to the target monitor.

The two previously violating monitors in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5
nonattainment area that had incomplete data were: PS 59 and PS 19 (AQS
ID’s 360610056 and 360610128, respectively).   PS 59 ceased monitoring
in June 2008 and had an incomplete design value of 15.5 µg/m3 for
2006-2008.  PS 19 had poor data capture for 2008 due to roof repair. 
The goal of this methodology is to appropriately fill in the missing
data from the last two quarters of 2008, and quarters 1-4 of 2009 to
determine if the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area is attaining the
NAAQS.

Concept for determining design values

The concept behind the method for determining design values (DVs) for
the monitors with incomplete data is to establish a linear regression
relationship between the target site with incomplete data and another
site in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area which has more complete
data in the period in which the target site is data deficient.  The
linear regression relationship would be based on time periods in which
both the target and candidate monitors were operating.  The linear
regression equation developed from the relationship between the target
and candidate monitors were used to fill in missing data for the target
site in any quarter in the most recent three-year period that did not
have 75 percent completeness based on actual observations, so that the
normal data completeness requirement of 

75 percent of data in each quarter of the three years is met.  After the
missing data for the sites was filled in, the results were verified
through an additional statistical test.  The additional statistical test
used, referred to as bootstrapping, examines the differences between the
predicted fill in concentrations and the actual observed concentrations
to determine if the design values for the monitors with incomplete data
meet the annual NAAQS for PM2.5. 

Eligibility

Eligibility criteria was established in order to assure that the method
used to determine design values for the target monitors in the NY-NJ-CT
PM2.5 nonattainment area was robust enough to allow consideration of the
results in a weight of evidence decision.  EPA has not established
bright lines or specific requirements for determining design values for
sites with less than complete data.  

Operating period

Candidate monitors would have operated during the 3-year period
(2007-2009) in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area in which the target
monitor has incomplete data in order to establish a significant
relationship between the monitors.  Candidate monitors do not
necessarily have to have complete data in all 12 quarters of the 3-year
period, but candidate monitors would have enough observations to allow
it to be used to fill in enough missing days for target monitor so that
the target monitor will end up with at least 75 percent completeness in
all 12 quarters.  

Paired samples

Pairs of sample data for target monitors and candidate monitors from the
most recent 20-quarter period of operation of the target monitors were
used.  The “period of operation” of the target monitors was based on
the date of the last reported sample from the monitor.  Candidate
monitors had at least 100 historical sample pairs in common with target
monitors during this period.  When there were more than 100 pairs in the
20-quarter period all available pairs were used.  In addition to the 100
pairs over the 20-quarters, candidate monitors had at least 20 paired
days of data in common with the target monitors for each calendar
quarter (adding together the number of days in a given calendar quarter
[Q1, Q2, Q3, or Q4] across the 20-quarter period).

Several candidate sites met the eligibility criteria of 100 pairs over
the 20-quarters, and at least 20 paired days of data in common with the
target monitors for each calendar quarter. 

Method for determining design values

Step 1 – Organize data and perform linear regression(s) between target
monitor and candidate monitors.

All the available paired data within the period limit described in the
Eligibility section was used to develop a linear regression to predict
target concentrations from candidate concentrations.  A regression was
performed for each possible pairing that met the criteria utilized for
100 data points and 20 data points per calendar quarter (across all
years) in the most recent 20 quarters for each candidate monitor in the
NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

Step 2 – Select Candidate site

The NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area has a large number of monitors
which could have been used as candidate sites.  Only one candidate
monitor was selected for each target monitor.  The follow steps were
used to select the candidate monitor.  

1) Candidate monitors were placed into order of highest correlation
(highest r-squared in the linear regression) with the Target.  

2) Using the regression equation relating concentrations at the Target
monitor and the Candidate monitor, estimates of the 24-hour average
concentrations were made at the Target monitor for all missing scheduled
days in the initially incomplete quarters in the most recent three-year
period at the Target. Estimates were only made for days on which a
concentration is available at the Candidate monitor.  Estimates were not
made for any days in quarters for which the Target had 75 percent or
more complete data initially.  The estimates were combined with any
reported data at the Target in the recent 3-year period and the data
capture rates were computed for each originally incomplete quarter.  The
computation of data capture rates required an assumption that the
required sampling frequency for the Target was recorded.   If the
Candidate monitor had a lower sampling frequency than the Target, some
missing scheduled days for the Target were not substituted for the
regression-based estimates.  When the Candidate monitor had a lower
sampling frequency than the Target, the Target sampling schedule was
assumed to be a combination of the Target and Candidate schedules,
weighted by the number of originally present and originally missing
scheduled days at the Target.  

3) If after performing the process in #2 results in all 12 quarters at
the Target having at least 75 percent of scheduled values, the Candidate
monitor was selected as the Candidate for the remaining steps. If 75
percent of the scheduled values for the Target were not obtained, the
steps in #2 were repeated for the next best correlated other site.  This
process was repeated until the Target had 75 percent of its scheduled
values.

Step 3 – Design Value Computed

The three-year design value was calculated using the actual observations
of the Target and the regression-based estimates of daily
concentrations.  The design values for both Target monitors in the
NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area were both below the NAAQS

Step 4 –Statistical confidence of a design value below the NAAQS
checked

The results of Step 3 showed design values for both Target monitors in
NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area to be below the NAAQS.  In order to
show that there is at most a 10 percent probability that the actual
design value (had the Target monitors operated more days) was above the
NAAQS further analysis was performed as follows:

(a) 	Residuals were calculated from the regression.

(b) 	A bootstrap analysis was performed, repeating the regression-based
substitution in Step 2 but adding to each estimated 24-hour value that
substitutes for a missing scheduled monitored value a plus or minus
residual that has been randomly drawn (with replacement) from the pool
of regression residuals.  This step randomly applies real residuals from
the linear regression to the imputed current-period Target values.

(c)  	Repeat (b) for a total of 1000 runs.  

(d)  	For each of the 1000 bootstrap trials, the 3-year design value was
calculated.  This will provide a pseudo confidence interval for the
partially imputed current-period design value for the Target.

(e) 	Since none of the 1000 runs resulted in a design values above the
NAAQS, the Target were considered to have met the NAAQS.   

 

Determining the design value for PS 59 (AQS ID: 360610056)

Steps 1 and 2 were performed with PS 59 as the Target monitor.  The
results of the regressions can be found in Figure 2.  On Figure 2, the
Target monitor is listed as Site A.  All the Candidate sites that were
used are listed as Site B.  The monitor (AQS ID: 360610134) had the
highest correlation with the Target monitor and met the operating period
and paired data eligibility criteria for being a Candidate site.  The
results of the regression between the Target and Candidate monitor are
shown in Figure 3.  Estimates for the missing data for quarters 3 and 4
of 2008, and quarters 1 thru 4 of 2009 for the Target were made.  These
quarters were the quarters with less than 75 percent data capture.  As a
result of filling in the missing data, the Target monitor now had 30 and
28 days of data for quarters 3 and 4, respectively, for 2008, and 30,
30, 28, 31 for quarters 1 thru 4 of 2009.  A design value of 14.0 (g/m3
was calculated for the Target monitor when the missing data was filled
in Figure 4.

The statistical confidence of the design value was checked using the
method outlined in Step 4.  The results of the 1000 bootstrap trials
provided the following results:  108 DVs of 13.9 µg/m3, 578 DVs of 14.0
µg/m3, 301 DVs of 14.1 µg/m3, and 13 DVs of 14.2 µg/m3.  None of the
1000 bootstrapping trials resulted in a violating DV, which provides
statistical confidence that the monitor at PS 59 (AQS ID: 360610056) is
attaining the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

Determining the design value for PS 19 (AQS ID: 360610128)

Steps 1 and 2 were performed with PS 19 as the Target monitor.  The
results of the regressions can be found in Figure 5. On Figure 5, the
Target monitor is listed as Site A.  All the Candidate sites that were
used are listed as Site B.  The highest correlating monitor was PS 59,
but that did not meet the eligibility criteria because it was also
missing data for the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2008.  The 2nd and 4th
highest correlating monitors did not meet the stipulated minimum number
of pairs needed to construct a “good” regression model.  The 3rd
highest correlating monitor did not meet the minimum number of pairs
needed and also did not have data for the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2008. 
The fifth highest correlated monitor (AQS ID: 360470122) did meet all
the eligibility criteria and was used to determine a design value for PS
59.

The results of the regression between the Target and Candidate monitor
are shown in Figure 6  Estimates were made for the missing data in 2nd,
3rd and 4th quarters of 2008, and quarter 1 of 2009.  As a result of
filling in missing data, PS 19 had 28, 30 and 28 days of data for the
2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters of 2008, and 30 for quarter 1 of 2009,
respectively.  A design value of 12.0 µg/m3 was calculated for the
Target monitor when the missing data was filled in Figure 7.

The statistical confidence of the design value was checked using the
method outlined in Step 4.  The results of the 1000 bootstrap trials
provided the following results:  1 DV of 11.6 µg/m3, 1 DV of 11.7, 11
DVs of 11.8 µg/m3, 89 DVs of 11.9 µg/m3, 365 DVs of 12.0 µg/m3, 439
DVs of 12.1 µg/m3, 93 DVs of 12.2 µg/m3, and 1 DV of 12.3 µg/m3. 
None of the 1000 bootstrapping trials resulted in a violating DV, which
provides statistical confidence that the monitor at PS 19 (AQS ID:
360610128) is attaining the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

 

C. 	Additional Analysis

	Additional statistical analysis was performed for PS 59 using a
different candidate site.  EPA re-ran the analysis using the highest
correlated monitor (corr 0.9583) with PS59 (AQS ID 360810124) that had
complete data from 2006-2009.  The monitoring site previously selected
as site B (AQS ID 360610134) had the highest overall correlation with
PS59 (corr 0.9807), but quarterly data capture was below 75 percent
completeness in the first quarter of 2008.  Although requiring 75
percent data completeness in all 12 quarters would go beyond the
previously described eligibility criteria for data capture, EPA believes
that it’s worth noting whether the area would attain the NAAQS when
the correlation is made with another site with more complete, but not as
well correlated data.  

The results of the analysis using AQS ID 360810124 as the Candidate
monitor produced a 2007-2009 DV of 14.6 µg/m3, which is below the NAAQS
of 15.0 ug/m3.

D.	Trends

	Figure 8 displays the county design value trends for the years
2001-2009.  The annual NAAQS of 15.0 ug/m3 is shown for reference. 
Appendix A displays the annual design values for each individual FRM
monitors in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area from 1999 thru 2009.

	Figure 8 illustrates the overall declining county design values across
the nonattainment area.  Beginning in 2006-2008 all county design values
including New York County, which includes substituted data due to
monitor shut down of the NAA design value site at PS 59, have been below
the NAAQS of 15.0 ug/m3.  Monitored data collected from FRM monitors
(see Appendix A) have not exceeded the NAAQS of 15.0 ug/m3 since 05-07.

	It should be noted that Richmond County in New York shows an increase
in the county design value from 2003-05 to 2004-06.  However, this is
not due to an increase of PM2.5 concentrations at a specific monitor;
but reflects that the county design monitor was changed during this time
period:  Site number 360850055 was the new design value site for 2004-06
which had a higher monitored concentration than the previous county
design site for 2003-05 (i.e., site 360855067).  Previously site
360850055 had incomplete data.  A review of data from both sites in
Appendix A shows a mostly declining trend at both sites.

		20

 

Figure 8 Design value trends for counties in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5
nonattainment area for the years 2001-2009.



CONCLUSION

	EPA is proposing to determine that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment
area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS has attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
and continues to attain the standard based on data through 2009.  

	EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for PM2.5, consistent
with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50 and recorded in the
EPA Air Quality System database for the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment
area.  The 3-year averages of the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations
continue to be below the NAAQS of 15.0 ug/m3.  

	EPA has concluded that less than complete data from the PS 59
monitoring site is warranted for determining attainment of the NAAQS.
The States of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut have been very
diligent in the number and placement of PM2.5 monitors in the
nonattainment area.  The monitor at PS 59 was shutdown due to a planned
building demolition, and could not be replaced.  An EPA procedure using
a statistical method to estimate concentrations at the design value site
at PS 59, if the monitor continued to operate, demonstrated attainment
of the NAAQS.

	As provided in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), if EPA finalizes this determination,
it would suspend the requirements for this area to submit attainment
demonstrations, reasonably available control measures, reasonable
further progress plans, and contingency measures related to attainment
of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS so long as the area continues to attain
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

						22

Appendix A

Annual Means for NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 FRM monitors



					

Appendix B

Network Review Letters

 On July 7, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit rendered its decisions in the PM2.5 Designations Litigation,
Catawba County, NC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2009).  The Court
denied all of the petitions for review except Rockland County, New York
and remanded the designation of Rockland County to EPA for further
explanation of its designation.

 Memorandum of December 14, 2004, from Steve Page, Director, EPA Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards to EPA Air Division Directors,
“Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.” This document is available at: 
http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/1997standards/guidance.htm

 Section 319 of the CAA requires EPA to establish a uniform air quality
index for reporting of air quality. This section specifically directs
the Administrator to ‘‘promulgate regulations establishing an air
quality monitoring system throughout the United States which utilizes
uniform air quality monitoring criteria and methodology and measures
such air quality according to a uniform air quality index’’ and
‘‘provides for daily analysis and reporting of air quality based
upon such uniform air quality index” 

 The monitor in New York County located at Public School 59 (PS 59) was
the highest reading monitor at the time EPA made designations for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on January 5, 2005.  Midway through 2008, the monitor
at PS59 was shut down due to the demolition of the building site. 
Therefore, the data up until 2008 was from PS 59.  Missing 2008 data had
an effect on calculating the design value for the annual standard.  EPA
developed an alternative procedure to determine the design value for the
annual standard.  This procedure used data representative of PS 59 based
on EPA’s statistical analysis.  A description of the alternate
procedure can be found in Section VI.  

 The air monitor at the Newark Willis Center station in Essex County was
discontinued on July 24, 2008 due to an unexpected loss of access, and
replaced with a new monitor at the Newark Firehouse.   PM2.5 monitoring
was established at the firehouse on May 13, 2009.  Since three years of
data was not collected at either monitoring site for 2006-08, and
2007-09, Essex County is listed as INC for the most recent three year
periods

	

 PAGE   2 

 PAGE   3 

Figure 7.  Results for PS 19 after filling in missing data for quarters
2, 3 and 4 of 2009, and quarter 1 of 2009.

Figure 6  Regression results computed from 360610128 (Target/Site A/PS
19) – 360470122 (Candidate/Site B).  

The linear relationship between the two monitors is: Target
concentration= 1.98081  +  0.95622 * Site B concentration.  The
correlation coefficient was 0.9518.

Figure 5 Correlation and data capture for monitors used to determine a
design value for PS 19.

Figure 4.  Results for PS 59 after filling in missing data for quarters
3 and 4 of 2008, and all quarters of 2009

Figure 3 Regression results computed from 360610056 (Target/Site A/PS
59) – 360610134 (Candidate/Site B).

The linear relationship between the two monitors is: Target
concentration= 0.44277  +  0.98545 * Candidate concentration.  The
correlation coefficient was 0.9807.

Figure 2 Correlation and data capture for monitors used to determine a
design value for PS 59.

